Sure. As long as the software continues to work despite whatever you broke or disabled. It all depends on how forgiving the software is and how integrated the hardware is.
If manufacturers really want to collect this data, they currently have the power to stop you.
The concept of payment beyond present requirements may not have existed back then. People were payed in the resources their family needed to survive between the harvest seasons.
More than an ordinary laborer, much more than an agricultural slave, and you also had social esteem and a higher spiritual acclaim. This all means a LOT in a highly stratified society, like Ancient Egypt. You don't give such things to slaves.
Interesting, I was reading some comments from Japanese users and they said the Japanese voice sounds like a (very good N1 level) foreigner speaking Japanese.
London has sky high rents for young professionals while also taxing them exorbitant amounts that ends up subsidize social housing for "economically inactive" people. I would not call that efficient.
Microsoft didn't kill Gears of War out of ineptitude or malice. It's just that consumers don't want to play cover shooters anymore. There's no market for the game's core identity. People's tastes have swung hard in the opposite direction, they want movement shooters.
If the diagram shows lift but doesn't show the air being directed downward after leaving the tailing edge of the wing, I basically stop reading. That's the whole thing.
Thank. You. That's exactly what is missing and that's exactly what I have mentioned in my... highly criticised comment. It just shows how pervasive the misconception is.
If you take a step back there is a simple way to think about this. In order for the object to stay up there, there needs to be equal and opposite force from some other body. What is that other body? It is the mass of air that is being directed in the opposite direction of the lift force acting on the plane.
I think the mistake this site is making is trying to model out pressure changes that would create an airfoil-like shape of airflow. That's not how wings work. The pressure at the wing's leading surface is infinite because there's a metal skin there. You don't need a low pressure zone sucking air up 1m above it to explain that.
This view also implies that most of the lift is happening on the very front edge of the wing which I doubt is accurate otherwise we would have very skinny wings.
Unfortunately it partly bitrotted due to using java applets for interactive demos, but I think most of it is still reachable - I'll try to find it later when I'm at the desk.
Personally I learnt from a 1980 book that was still part of mandatory reading for glider pilot course in Poland in 2005.
Search is going downhill at least in part because they're dealing with an entire industry that's adversarial to them. SEO companies are spending billions of dollars and countless man-hours with the explicit goal of making search worse. The fact that they've gotten even better tools in the form of GenAI for manipulating search hasn't helped.
I'd argue a much bigger part is their various nerfs.
Reddit and SO are barely recommended.
Product reviews used to go to higher quality blogs, Reddit, Consumer Reports now are now just all content filler sites.
During Trump they decided allowing anything except for MSNBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/etc on the first five pages of anything remotely news related were the only allowable results. This mirrors exactly the Gemini/OpenAI nerfs for PC.
Given 90% of my searches are for questions about what people think about things, code/food/drugs/health/medicine/etc, and topical events, it's become completely useless without adding "reddit" or something after.
I won't deny that there's nerfs, but do you not see how "Product reviews used to go to higher quality blogs, Reddit, Consumer Reports now are now just all content filler sites." and "People trying to sell you things are spending billions of dollars on SEO to junk up your results" are related
I strongly don't think it's caused by SEO, it's caused by them not liking that having too much reliance on certain sources. There was an update a while back where Wikipedia/Reddit were turned way down suddenly, this is a knob they are using specifically.
I think NASA also has higher public/pr standards they’re held to. A few spacex failures no one cares much about. If nasa fails a few times everyone (particularly more conservative leaning folk) starts complaining about their precious taxpayer money. Hence NASA likely sticks to project that are very low risk. I’m not saying this is good or bad per se, but public opinion is what it is.
It’s also a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don’t with nasa - play safe and people complain they’re not doing much, why are they funded. Play more risky and inevitably end up with a failure, get questioned why they’re wasting money. I don’t think I’ve seen much criticisms of when SpaceX or blue origin win govt grants for funding.
Again, this isn’t to say that enterprises don’t deserve govt support if they’re truly helping (lobby concerns aside). But it’s a multifaceted issue.
There's also a political angle since NASA represents the US. If anything goes wrong with a NASA project it's a massive propaganda opportunity for agitators and rival countries to mass spam the internet about how horrible America has become, what a laughing stock, etc., etc., doing everything they can to push their anti-US propaganda as hard as they can. There's more repercussions for NASA to fail at something than a private company.
This is an interesting angle that I haven't thought of.
NASA projects carry a lot more gravitas than "move fast and break things" Musk projects. If something explodes at SpaceX, as long as people aren't hurt, no one really cares. People who dislike Musk will simply point at the debris and say: "We told you he's an idiot" and people who like him will rush to his defense, but the standing of the US as a whole isn't on the line.
I think it is more that SpaceX has a fail fast engineering culture and was clear about that from the start. I mean they made a blooper real “How not to land an orbital rocket booster”.
Also SpaceX’s launch stream production quality and PR has been surprisingly good from the start as well.
This is hardly surprising in a society that prefers to dole money to contractors rather than invest in any practical technology. What value has SpaceForce demonstrated to justify its investment? That's just graft.
"Mind Virus" is loaded and inflammatory, but "woke" is the result of people noticing a large and highly influential social movement that refuses to name itself and chafes against any outside attempt to do so. You can't have a movement that important without a name.
Woke is AAVE that had its meaning perverted by conservatives as one of the means to make attempts at pointing out structural inequality ridiculous, actually. So the purest definition of woke I can come up with is "person a conservative wants to silence through ridicule that their ideas are capable of merit".
A carefully curated list of salient examples that conservatives pretend are systemic?
Forgive me if my interest in arguing with someone who quotes "CRT in schools" (with a salient example) and an intentionally (?) crude understanding of what "defund the police" means on the website that courted far right populists[1] is rather insubstantial.
I think we're just too far apart to reconcile anything. A YouTube personality called Vaush might be your kind of rhetoric if you look for left leaning people to address the claims head on, in length. I don't have the breath for it.
